Bigfoot

I’m no believer, quite the skeptic actually, but I’ve always been fascinated by the subject. More recently, I’ve pondered writing a story revolving around the Sasquatch. Something that I’d attempt to do without the schlock and cheesiness that Bigfoot stuff has.

Here’s the thing; I want to say forget it to most of not all the supposed evidence and eye witness accounts and create a realistic interpretation of an intelligent upright ape species in the North America. The only element I wish to carry over is the claims that Bigfoot will throw stones at campers and possibly the howls (though I am more against it than for it because it feels a little overdone).

I have two questions; what would a real Bigfoot be like in appearance and behavior? And what are ways to explain the lack of evidence for such animal?

I have one idea to explain the lack of bodies/fossils; the species, being near caveman intelligence and nomadic solidarity by nature, takes the remains of their partner (they live only with their mates, not in groups) to one place as some kind of proto-religious ritual. The reasons why no remains of the creature has been discovered is because it’s all in one location, which had yet to be discovered, and that the animals make the trip to this location as part of their nomadic behavior.

I also think appearance and behavior must be something a Google search could provide.

How to explain the lack of evidence....

Here are some possibilities

1) They have some type of magic power. Perhaps they can time travel, or teleport, or are invisible.

2) They are masters of camouflage, and have a secretive nature, thusly they try as much as they can to stay away from places where anyone would find them. Or they are chameleon like and can be standing right next to you, but you would not know because they just blend in.

3) They live mostly underground

4) There is a big government cover up engaged in protecting them, similar to how we all know there are aliens but the government keeps everything classified. We all know that, right??

5) They can shape shift. They turn into foxes or such when things get near. Or maybe turn into people and just blend in.

6) Its all true and we have just not discovered there real home yet.

7) They give off some kind of effect that makes others unknowingly move away from them, or the have some type of poison that make people black out and forget.

8) They have all the technology of lost Atlantis and their real city has an invisibility cloak around it.

9) Being barefoot is not their usual state, and since their shoes are so big, they don't often leave impressions.

10) They are some type of divine being, and they don't tend to stay upon earth very long.

I am a very firm believer in Bigfoot, Yeti (not the same species), the Yowie and other similar creatures. I also believe in more supernatural things like the Mothman creatures, Ghosts, the Beast of Gevaudan and others. We live in a world where very unusual things happen, a quite interesting place actually.

There are various theories regarding what the Bigfoot or Sasquatch creatures could be, but if you want the more realistic one it would be this: They are descendants of the enormous Gigantopithecus, the largest primate that ever lived. It has been estimated that a large Giganto stood up to three meters or ten feet tall, with a weight of 560 kilograms or 1235 pounds.

In reality few Bigfoot specimens can reach that height, so I doubt that they are descended from those primates.

The best explanation for the elusiveness of Bigfoot are their intelligence and excellent senses. If you are walking through the forest in a Bigfoot-inhabited area, they can hear and smell you from a great distance and they either depart or hide a long time before you can even see them. Also, they have unbelievable speed and agility when they move through the forests and other types of ecosystem.

What you mention about rocks is true, they like throwing things and they have a terrible physical strength.

I am in favor of more supernatural theories about both Bigfoot and Yeti, but if you want to explain the lack of remains we can believe that they perform their own funerals and burial of their dead.

Bigfoot are also benign creatures in general, which differentiates them from the very dangerous and bloodthirsty Yetis.

I'm a skeptic. There's compelling physical evidence, but until several DNA samples are collected to suggest the demographics of a sustained sasquatch population or specimens can be examined...

That being said, it's credulous to me if you think about their lack of discovery as a simple landmass to population ratio. No magic, just math.

15,000,000:: 20%
15,000:: 80%

Native people in their oral and visual history have clearly documented the existence of a creature matching the general description of a bigfoot for a long time, as they were also inhabiting some of the same remote areas.

It is proposed that the available territory in North America for a sasquatch population is larger than the entire continental landmass of the United States, called 'the North Region'.

Today, in spite of technology, the majority of modern human populations are both 'southernly' and coastal in comparisson to the huge swath of available territory. 15 million people (humans), both rural and urban, are concentrated in a landmass of 20% of available area of the North Region.

If you wanted to be generous and suppose a healthy and vibrant sasquatch population exists, let's say 15,000...that means 15,000 individuals are inhabiting 80% of the available area. That same 80% of available landmass has a population of *zero* humans living in sustained, year round populations. Zero.

Try finding 15,000 non-human persons that do not live in large group populations in a wilderness bigger than the United States. 15,000 individuals spread over more than 2.3 BILLION acres. That's roughly 1 individual per 153,333 acres. And that same individual is both intelligent and does not want to be found by you.

Then, there's the overlap at the southern border where humans and sasquatches are both keeping sustained populations... probably 5 to 10% of available landmass are 'shared' if you want to be generous with that figure. That's where a lot of 'sightings' happen, as humans have the means to access the same land area as the sasquatch.

The wilderness available to them is bio-dynamic and a diverse ecosystem, sustaining other large predators and a plethora of wildlife. If other large omnivores, predators and herbivores can readily survive without tools or fire, so can hominids.

Anthropologists that have thrown their hats into the ring have supposed several possible lineages for the evolution of sasquatch. They are now supposing that they are as every bit as intelligent as other hunter-gatherer hominid contenders, but they did not master the utilization of fire. Basically they could be very much like the Neanderthal in many respects, except they kept their fur coats and, again, did not utilize fire. Without fire, you basically lose all 'evidence' of material civilation byproducts (no campfire, forged tools, modified organic materials, early pottery, food preservation, food waste/garbage piles, hide tanning, etc.)

If every material used is biodegradable and mostly unmanipulated, over eons, the evidence is lost. Especially if the population is truly nomadic... there'd be little accumulation of evidence of a population if they travel huge distances and seldom camped in the same place twice and needed no or few 'personal posessions'.

Basically, they may have culture, (teaching survival skills in family groups to younger individuals) but sasquatch do not appear to have developed the concept or need of civilization. They do not farm, keep livestock, create complex tools, live in huge long-term social groups, etc. Sasquatch should be considered the Masters of the Wildnerness, the apex hunter-gatherer. Humans became the Masters of Civilization (technology). Even Neanderthal clearly had culture and the inklings of civilization, but didn't develop animal husbandry or agriculture.

Now, given that there's roughly 5 to 10% of overlapping wildnerness territory with native and contemporary human populations, the biggest question is: Why have we never found the remains of a sasquatch? It's suggested that perhaps they bury or scatter their dead, again assuming some culture or abstracted practical understanding. However, it's also unusual to find bear remains. Those are large animals, and they certainly aren't being buried by fellow bears. Conservationists usually only find bear remains if they've been shot and killed by hunters/poachers, or younger bears that succumbed to starvation or predation. Even then, scientists are usually "clued in" because they 'know' where the bears are because so many are collared and tracked by GPS and radio collars.

There's a lot of respectable research available. Dr. Bindernagel, PHD has written several books on the subject of Bigfoot as well other scientific-minded contemporaries. And, seeing how we are still discovering new species, and ancient species alive and well thought to be extinct, the idea of an unconfirmed hominid species is not implausible.

Fantastic response Night Gardener, thanks! Exactly what I was looking for. Do you perhaps have an opinion on the lack of footprints or dung? I have an idea on how I could solve the dung issue but the footprints are hard to get around without pretending that the footprints that have been discovered are real.

Fantastic response Night Gardener, thanks! Exactly what I was looking for. Do you perhaps have an opinion on the lack of footprints or dung? I have an idea on how I could solve the dung issue but the footprints are hard to get around without pretending that the footprints that have been discovered are real.

Click to expand...

For lack of footprints... an anthropologist would tell you to study known species and supposed species foot anatomy. Sasquatch foot castings thought to be genuine evidently lack an 'arch' to the mechanics of the foot. Humans have a distinct arch and flex in the jointing of feet, enabling our unique gait, center of gravity and range of abilities. Simply put, Sasquatch tracks don't look like any other known tracks and can be mistaken for other naturally occuring terrain conditions. A very, very skilled tracker could probably be 'clued in' that 'something' came through the area... but, they aren't hooved, don't have claws, don't have paw pads etc. I guess the easiest explaination is while supposed to be large animals, their weight and gait (being bipedal) doesn't look 'animal enough' at all and not distinct enough to say 'foot print' vs. 'somewhat disturbed ground'. That being said, there are truly remarkable alledged foot castings found in unique terrain conditions that appear to have impressions of dermal ridges and healed scar tissue. However, most foot prints and tracks go totally unnoticed in the wild, especially if you don't know what you're looking for. Right now, my yard looks like 'something' may have been walking through it, but I know it's a combination of mole activity and frost heaving. I've dismissed the possibility that a bigfoot has been traipsing around my yard. But... what if their foot prints are naturally that unremarkable and indistinguishable? That would be an enormous evolutionary advantage to basically not generate distinct, readily identifiable tracks. That is almost a 'cloak of invisibility' IMHO.

As far as scat, I would speculate that they either bury it, camoflauge it, scatter it, or some combination of the three. If they're eating similar diets to other large omnivores, like bears, again it may be similar enough in visual and material composition to not be distinguishable, especially if they (sasquatch) are self-aware enough to know they ought to... ahem...'leave no trace'.

I live in Washington state, a short enough drive from the Olympic Peninsula that we call it "the back yard." I have no doubt at all that such a creature could be out there with no "evidence" of its existence.

It can be hard to comprehend just how staggeringly, jaw-droppingly vast the wilderness out there is until you've been there. You could land a UFO in the Olympic Mountains or along the Canadian Coast, and nobody would know.